The Unmutual
Reviews:
The Bond Code.
By Philip Gardiner.
New Page Books

Review by Rick Davy.

There
have been many books written about James Bond over the years, I confess all
of which have passed me by as I am not a huge fan of Bond (although like to
watch the films now and again), but the latest, by Philip Gadiner, caught
my eye as it features a chapter on "The Prisoner".

Rather than a production
resume of the Bond films, or a simple biography of its writer/creator Ian
Fleming, "The Bond Code" is a decipher of codes and links which
Fleming apprently hid in his novels, and things from his life which can be
connected to them, and thus makes this book a different and interesting tome,
for fans and non-fans alike.

The problem with a lot
of books which deal with theory is that little can be proven, especially with
Fleming no longer alive, but in this case the author does put forward some
interesting theories which certainly do fit, and backs them up with good research
and evidence. Not being an expert on Bond it's difficult for this reviewer
to pick holes in what was written, and on top of that I didn't get bored so
perhaps the author and publisher has got the balance just about right in that
such a book needs to appeal to a wider range of customer than just pure Flemingphiles
and it certainly did enough to keep me interested throughout.

However, some of the
facts and apparent influences upon Fleming are in some cases a little obvious
(such as the section on the occult), and in others do not really need to be
told, but there is certainly enough here to make even the most ardent Bond
fan sit up and think "I never thought of it like that, well spotted!".

As mentioned above, there
is a section on "The Prisoner" and "Danger Man" and perhaps
here I might be reasonably qualified to see if the author "knows his
stuff", being a secondary interest i'm sure, as compared to Bond, for
him.

Although a short chapter,
it is well written (always difficult to explain the series, and Danger Man
with it as well as McGoohan as a man) in a short amount of space, but even
so there are a few sentences which make little sense, for example "In
the end Number Six escapes with each character of Number Two, which are elements
of himself he cannot leave behind." and "This is an otherworldly
experience, accessed in dream. It is infact taking Dangerman/McGoohan into
himself to purge him of all that is wrong in his life". It seems
strange that on one hand the author concedes that McGoohan has always been
tight lipped about the true meanings of the series, and that it is open to
interpretation, but then states things such as the above as fact, when they
are simply the author's opinion. This comes to afore when Gardiner recounts
the opening sequence, stating that the "You.....are Number Six"
line actually means "YOU are, Number Six" (IE "you are Number
One") when as we all know, the emphasis is never phrased in that way
at all and was never intended to be.

This does make me wonder
if the same is true of the rest of the book and does cast a doubt for this
reviewer as to what is fact and what is just a loose collection of things
that the author has spun together, as has been done before with "The
Prisoner", of course.

It is very true, however,
that Danger Man and The Prisoner both used elements of Bond in it's lead characters
and storylines, and cannot be denied. However, I was flummoxed by the statement
"McGoohan was asked to play Bond, but refused, saying only that he
could not associate with one of the people on the team". If there
is a fact this reviewer doesn't know, I humbly apologise to the author, but
I believed it was common knowledge that McGoohan refused Bond on moral principles
(IE he would not portray a gun-toting womaniser, the 2 main traits of Bond)
and, as we know, McGoohan prided himself of John Drake being "the secret
agent with no gun, and no girls". I was then amazed with "McGoohan
has never denied the claim that Number 6 was a parody of Bond".
He has never denied that Number 6 was a parody of Baron Frankenstein either,
but that doesn't mean he was. I think the author here is perhaps over-egging
the importance of Bond. Sure, the gadgets and so on in Danger Man certainly
may have been inspired, but i'd like to credit McGoohan/Markstein with a little
more genius than "The Prisoner" simply being "James Bond with
no name in a weird village".

However, I am being picky
with just 2 paragraphs, and the rest of the "Prisoner" section is
well paced and written, and has a good summing up of the overall "meaning"
of the series, and has perhaps the book's most interesting fact - Ian Fleming
for a time lived next door to Clough Williams-Ellis' London studio. Well,
I never knew that!

So, in summary, the author
lets himself down a couple of times, but this book is still a very interesting
read and certainly makes you think, which one could argue is the whole point.
It's a little heavy going in places (but then so it could be said was Fleming),
but there are some delightful chapters (such as the events on the author's
holiday which led him to find an unexpected Fleming connection) and overall
is a good read.

The text size is large
and the book runs to 256 pages, with many (black and white and not superb
quality) photographs, so it's not that extensive, but at $16.99 (about £8)
is good value and won't leave too many readers disappointed.